DENSITY

A theme that arose from all the conversations I had with architects and activists in Mumbai is how to address the question of density. 

One of the more interesting days we had were the dichotomous conversations with Hafeez Contractor and PK Das. Hafeez Contractor self proclaims that he is "the real architect of slum redevelopment" in a ironically critical New York Times article that Hafeez proudly shows. While from all my research I found that he was "in cahoots" with the government, that is exactly what he intended. He approached the government with his policy ideas. It was good to hear him talk because his philosophy is completely coherent, albeit unsuccessful in reality as we have seen with the likes of LeCorbusier and Robert Moses. The starting point for all of his projects is how to finance them, and like a true capitalist, he advocates for the private market (and possibility for profit) to float the public/affordable realm. Financial feasibility is the argument, not a social obligatory one. 

The end goal, the mark of success, he sees for Mumbai is growth, simply more development. It is veiled in an argument for the environment, where density is the logical solution to conservation. To him it is equally successful for new housing to simply be an asset that can be sold off by those in need of affordable housing. Affordable housing can then be found in the villages, and the city becomes an exclusive location for the rich, even if that is in the form of empty assets. This is where the whole in his argument lies. While it seems obvious that the city should be inclusive and multi-class which has always been the basis for a city, we could argue that this is not Mr. Contractor's end goal. What I found redeeming in his argument was his diehard belief in density, but this is where it falls apart. If it is equally successful for housing to become and asset that can be sold and not a place that can actually be an affordable residence, he is inherently supporting sprawl.